Background
Ousmane Bah worked for the Quebec Medical Assessment Bureau from November 2023 until his termination on March 21, 2025. In November 2024, he sent an email to colleagues and supervisors alleging workplace harassment, racial discrimination, and making references to threats and involvement of Canadian political leaders. Concerned about his statements, his employer temporarily removed him from duties in December 2024 and requested he undergo a medical examination to confirm his fitness to work. Bah refused to attend the examination despite multiple requests, warnings that non-compliance would result in dismissal, and even an offer to obtain the examination from a doctor of his choosing. He was subsequently terminated.
Bah applied for employment insurance benefits, but the Employment Insurance Commission denied his claim, concluding he had lost employment due to “misconduct” under section 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. He requested reconsideration and appealed to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division, both of which upheld the Commission’s decision. He then sought permission to appeal to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division, which was denied on October 15, 2025, on the grounds that his proposed appeal had no reasonable chance of success. Bah subsequently brought a judicial review application to the Federal Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed Bah’s judicial review application. The court held that the Appeal Division’s decision rejecting permission to appeal was reasonable, lawful, and supported by the evidence in the record. Justice Gascon found that Bah had failed to meet his burden of proving the decision was unreasonable. The court noted that under the applicable legal test, “misconduct” in the employment insurance context means deliberate conduct where the claimant knew or should have known that their conduct would hinder performance of employment obligations and that dismissal was realistically possible. The test requires: (1) deliberate misconduct, (2) the claimant’s knowledge that their conduct would hinder their employment obligations, and (3) a causal connection between the misconduct and the termination.
The court found that Bah’s refusal to attend the mandatory medical examination met all elements of the test. The evidence clearly showed that Bah knew the consequences of non-compliance—multiple warnings had been issued and he had been told dismissal could result. His refusal was conscious, deliberate, and intentional. The court rejected Bah’s various allegations concerning secret police, conspiracies involving government leaders, and claims that the medical examinations were murder attempts, finding them entirely unsupported by evidence. The court emphasized that in employment insurance cases, the relevant analysis focuses on the claimant’s knowledge and actions, not on whether the employer’s directive was reasonable, whether the policy was justified, or whether alternative solutions existed.
Key Takeaways
- Misconduct under employment insurance law requires deliberate conduct coupled with the claimant’s knowledge that their actions would hinder employment obligations and could result in dismissal.
- An employer’s reasonable directive to undergo a medical examination for workplace safety purposes cannot be refused without legal consequence, even if the employee has obtained a medical certificate from another doctor.
- In employment insurance eligibility determinations, the focus is strictly on the employee’s knowledge and conduct—not on whether the employer’s policies were justified, reasonable, or compliant with provincial labor law.
- Unsupported allegations and conspiracy theories do not constitute valid grounds of appeal in judicial review proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Federal Court’s deference to the Social Security Tribunal’s application of well-established misconduct jurisprudence in employment insurance cases. The court made clear that claimants who seek judicial review must identify specific, reviewable errors—not merely ask the court to re-weigh evidence or re-examine factual findings. The decision also clarifies that an employer’s legitimate concern for workplace safety, coupled with an employee’s unjustified refusal to cooperate with medical assessment, constitutes misconduct that disqualifies the employee from benefits, regardless of the employee’s subjective fears or suspicions about the examination process.
The judgment illustrates the limits of judicial review in administrative law: courts will not overturn reasonable administrative decisions on the basis of generalized assertions or unsupported conspiracy claims, and administrative decision-makers have considerable latitude in factual determinations absent evidence of perversity or capriciousness. The decision should provide clarity to employment insurance claimants and adjudicators about the boundaries of what constitutes defensible grounds for appeal or judicial review in misconduct cases.